Electroconvulsive therapy right into your brain - Elon claims BCI can solve Autism

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

That would fit with the whole fixing problems fast thing tesla seems to be doing.  I wonder if the break in problem is already solved.

 

15 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

it was a review on youtube and the guy overall loves the tesla. but i guess maybe they improved it seeing from this article https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/tesla-model-3-model-s-regain-consumer-reports-recommendation/

Had a thought:  was this YouTube guys tesla a model 3, and was it the rear quarter window?  If so it might have been a break-in and he just didn’t notice anything stolen.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 

Had a thought:  was this YouTube guys tesla a model 3, and was it the rear quarter window?  If so it might have been a break-in and he just didn’t notice anything stolen.

the glass wasnt broken the window didnt go down any more

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Otto_iii said:

edit: They suck at chassis HARD, should be the simplest thing but they are awful at it in all quantifiable ways. 

You'd think if a tech company could do one thing right its engineer the simplest most crucial part of a car, but nah.

Same group did mention that the electronics, and the motors were top notch though, very good, world class in some cases, and we are talking electronics here so the brain implant thing should be fine. 

TLDR: they’re not made cheaply enough to suit other car manufacturers

 

Apparently chassis aren’t as simple as you say. Or don’t quite say, but imply with leading questions.
The problem apparently was not that the chassis was of poor quality, but it was made of too many parts.  This made it vastly stronger, though slower and more expensive to make.  So worse from a manufacturer’s production time and cost standpoint, but better from a consumer’s.

ADDENDUM:

i disagree with the assessment of the brain implant, though I can see how “well since it’s electronics it’s ok” reasoning could be made.

 

the issue is speed of change and where beta testing is being done.   Beta testing on the inside of human skulls seems a lot more iffy than beta testing on car customers.  Faster than anyone else doesn’t help with that one.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Bombastinator
Addendum, then TLDR added

[CarlBar]

4 hours ago, Otto_iii said:

I thought it was believed, atleast likely, that autism and related issues are largely a symptom of gut bacteria, not so much mind, thus why fecal transplants help out so much with it (albeit are not considered practical outside of extreme cases).  Why are we shocking peoples brains when we haven't figured out a simple solution for rectifying the gut biome

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324945.php
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/gut-bacteria-may-contribute-autism-symptoms-mouse-study-finds

maybe start with the most likely actual problem, or atleast see how far that can go, rather then band-aid the issue with something that could only be seen as invasive (not that fecal transplants aren't, but there is hope better ways will be developed in regards to this solution)

 

This is an incredibly complex issue. There's indications that the gut microbiome has an effect, but exactly why and how isn;t clear. We know as has been pointed out that people with autism have brain functionality thats wildly different than the norm. If the gut microbiome is the cause then how does it cause that. We also have the issue that we don;t have a lot of data on the whole gut bacteria effects in actual humans, you'd be amazed how often some treatment method has shown apparently amazing efficiency in neurological studies in a small group but had minimal effect in a larger group, (the effect is seen outside of neurology too). Mouse models for human neurology also have enormous issues. It's also not clear what level of effect where talking about here, the level of severity and exact symptoms that have changed has an enormous bearing here, (A large change in a very mild case may not be a particularly large absolute reduction whilst a large percentage in a severe case would still leave someone clearly on the spectrum). Nevermind the question about what causes the severity differentials for people on the spectrum.

 

That dosen;t mean this research couldn't be a promising avenue and should not be pursued, but where well short of declaring we have a definitive cause here, let alone some treatment method.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

This is an incredibly complex issue. There's indications that the gut microbiome has an effect, but exactly why and how isn;t clear. We know as has been pointed out that people with autism have brain functionality thats wildly different than the norm. If the gut microbiome is the cause then how does it cause that. We also have the issue that we don;t have a lot of data on the whole gut bacteria effects in actual humans, you'd be amazed how often some treatment method has shown apparently amazing efficiency in neurological studies in a small group but had minimal effect in a larger group, (the effect is seen outside of neurology too). Mouse models for human neurology also have enormous issues. It's also not clear what level of effect where talking about here, the level of severity and exact symptoms that have changed has an enormous bearing here, (A large change in a very mild case may not be a particularly large absolute reduction whilst a large percentage in a severe case would still leave someone clearly on the spectrum). Nevermind the question about what causes the severity differentials for people on the spectrum.

 

That dosen;t mean this research couldn't be a promising avenue and should not be pursued, but where well short of declaring we have a definitive cause here, let alone some treatment method.

The brain and how it works is something we as a species still know almost nothing about.  We know A LOT more than we used to, but it’s still not very much.  It’s a really hard thing to research.

 

Musk seems to be proposing research here more than he is proposing a product.  The difference between the two seems to be less a hard line for him than it does for some.  This seems to work well for vehicles.  Brains are inside people though and they need them.

[TechyBen]

On 11/18/2019 at 9:15 AM, floofer said:

Great news that Neurallink can solve Autism, I wonder what other cases Epstein didn't kill himself it can solve #LookIntoIt. 

Wait. What. Huh? Is this sarcasm?

It can't solve anything. Is this a soundbite like, "man invents hammer, says: I think we can tackle world hunger with building farms"

Headline "World hunger solved by this new invention".

I'd ask to get off this planet, but I think all the crazies are going to follow us too.

[CarlBar]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The brain and how it works is something we as a species still know almost nothing about.  We know A LOT more than we used to, but it’s still not very much.  It’s a really hard thing to research.

 

Oh indeed. And not just the brain. We still haven't worked out several major bits of basic cellular biology. There's a reason a good 90% of all pharmacological products to make it as far as trials fail.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Wait. What. Huh? Is this sarcasm?

It can't solve anything. Is this a soundbite like, "man invents hammer, says: I think we can tackle world hunger with building farms"

Headline "World hunger solved by this new invention".

I'd ask to get off this planet, but I think all the crazies are going to follow us too.

I don’t think there is anywhere to go.  Also crazies is to a degree a viewpoint.  People who act crazy generally don’t think they are at the time or they wouldn’t be doing it.

[TechyBen]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t think there is anywhere to go.  Also crazies is to a degree a viewpoint.  People who act crazy generally don’t think they are at the time or they wouldn’t be doing it.

Yep. But having the internal ability to rationalise, slow down, or find/listen to help... is a lot better than continuing that way (if at all possible. I've got patience, just not for an escalating dangerous situation).

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

You say that any time he said something was good for the world it turned out to be smoke and mirrors.   What exactly are you referring to?  That the products are smoke and mirrors or that the positive world aspects of them are smoke and mirrors?

The products appear to be real.  Or at least mostly real.

The batteries work.  That has been shown.  The cars work.  That has been shown.  Spacex works.  That has been shown. 

Of all those, Tesla is the one closest to cease being a subsidized beta, although quite not there yet. Perhaps more importantly, there is a recurrent disconnect between his mankind-transforming rhetoric and the very mundane nature of any actual achievement (which isn't a bad thing; a car company that finally manages to produce cars profitably is fulfilling its goal; it's the "revolutionary" or "visionary" claims that justify the "smoke & mirrors" bit. I think the glorified blowtorch sold as "flamethrower" is a great synthesis of his recent entrepreneurship). 

 

The only 100% true success story in Musk's record so far is PayPal. That's his legacy.

[Bombastinator]

24 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Of all those, Tesla is the one closest to cease being a subsidized beta, although quite not there yet. Perhaps more importantly, there is a recurrent disconnect between his mankind-transforming rhetoric and the very mundane nature of any actual achievement (which isn't a bad thing; a car company that finally manages to produce cars profitably is fulfilling its goal; it's the "revolutionary" or "visionary" claims that justify the "smoke & mirrors" bit. I think the glorified blowtorch sold as "flamethrower" is a great synthesis of his recent entrepreneurship). 

 

The only 100% true success story in Musk's record so far is PayPal. That's his legacy.

Fair enough.  I thought spacex was doing pretty well too though.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

17 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Fair enough.  I thought spacex was doing pretty well too though.

I had my doubts as well, although all the numbers I could found were unconfirmed. It might be even in a better stance than Tesla, but the nature of its business makes it harder to judge (huge development costs, large undisclosed contracts, unknown costs...).

It would still count for the speech ("we'll populate several worlds to hedge humanity against planetary disasters") vs facts ("we can reguarly put commercial satellites in orbit") roundup, though

[The King of the Undead]

so this is what we can use after vaccines!

[Bombastinator]

18 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well yes, crazy people tend to think they are normal and tend to project towards others for whatever reason.

I’m not sure what you mean by the second half of the sentence.  

Edited November 19, 2019 by Bombastinator
Misspoke. One sentance with an and making two points

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I had my doubts as well, although all the numbers I could found were unconfirmed. It might be even in a better stance than Tesla, but the nature of its business makes it harder to judge (huge development costs, large undisclosed contracts, unknown costs...).

It would still count for the speech ("we'll populate several worlds to hedge humanity against planetary disasters") vs facts ("we can reguarly put commercial satellites in orbit") roundup, though

That promise I find laughable myself.  I personally doubt there is anywhere else in the solar system that even can be populated ignoring travel problems which is what spacex is about and a problem they haven’t solved yet.  Over promising.  I can accept that as his goal, and it is laudable.  It may not actually be reachable though.  “We’ll” when taken as a promise rather than a goal is potentially false.  He’s not the only billionaire doing it ATM.  Just a not a dangerous one.  He’s not getting anyone hurt or killed.  Which is why I worry about this ECT thing.  ECT has the capacity to both those things.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, laminutederire said:.

As for the carbon footprint, it's also way more polluting to produce those cars than it is producing regulat cars, so the ecological costs even out during the car lifespan. The research I've seen mostly argues more public transports and more local organisation of life in order to really reduce transportation ecological footprint.

 

While I agree with a lot of what you have written, such as the poor quality of the cars, I would have say you are wrong on this particular point. There are very different ways to measure the carbon footprint and the oil industry have spent a lot of money trying to protect their business. This has resulted in a huge amount of manipulation of the figures and those figures being pushed to various press outlets. There is still a lot wrong with Tesla cars but this aspect is not one. The more established car makers are doing a far better job at constructing the car itself because they have many more years experience, accrued knowledge and resources to build a car. The edge Tesla once had with their battery manage and motor technology has gone as the established companies have thrown everything at it they can, and in many cases her in Europe have teamed up with their historic competitors to do so. Tesla did prove to the world the technology is there, they also have a superb charging network. However, I am not sure they can continue to do so well in a very rapidly growing marketplace. The likes of VAG, Ford, PSA, Merc, BMW, the Japanese and Korean brands will be having their say.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Diagnoses are complex, and usually those deemed "crazy" as we call it tend to yell, argue, etc towards others for different reasons.   I was in an institution for 11 days and saw it quite often when I was there.

"Crazy" is just a encompassing word to describe someone that is not behaving to social norms and customs.

 

Like going to a desert in a bikini. That's Crazy. But it might not be to someone who lives in California and made the logic leap of "sun=bikini weather", they'll end up with leathery lizard skin if they think a tan is a good thing. There is a reason why people who live in the desert wear those head-to-toe clothes. It may look too warm, but it's preventing you from turning into a piece of cooked bacon.

 

That's typically the problem with arm-chair diagnosis from the internet. They make the logic leap without showing the work, and when called out on it, can't show it. They probably heard it from someone, or cribbed it from Wikipedia without looking at the source. That's why when you're on a forum having a serious discussion an not trolling for lulz, you cite the research papers, not just the news article.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

While I agree with a lot of what you have written, such as the poor quality of the cars, I would have say you are wrong on this particular point. There are very different ways to measure the carbon footprint and the oil industry have spent a lot of money trying to protect their business. This has resulted in a huge amount of manipulation of the figures and those figures being pushed to various press outlets. There is still a lot wrong with Tesla cars but this aspect is not one. The more established car makers are doing a far better job at constructing the car itself because they have many more years experience, accrued knowledge and resources to build a car. The edge Tesla once had with their battery manage and motor technology has gone as the established companies have thrown everything at it they can, and in many cases her in Europe have teamed up with their historic competitors to do so. Tesla did prove to the world the technology is there, they also have a superb charging network. However, I am not sure they can continue to do so well in a very rapidly growing marketplace. The likes of VAG, Ford, PSA, Merc, BMW, the Japanese and Korean brands will be having their say.

I think there has been a lot of manipulation of both perceived vehicle quality and of perceived carbon foot print both in Tesla’s disfavor.  I too believed the “gas and electric carbon foot print the same” thing until I watched someone break it down with numbers.  That’s why I said half and not much lower or the same.  He chose only lowest and highest possible numbers always in the favor of gas cars.  The number he got was still only half.  Not the even higher number that the EPA rates electric cars at, but still lower than a gas engine car.

I do not believe that the traditional auto industry has caught up mechanically with tesla.  At all.  Tesla’s advantages in the area are very specific: battery design, battery control technology, and motor design.  Traditional car companies would be capable of narrowing or closing the gap with battery control technology, but not in battery design or motor design.  They simply can’t.  They don’t have the batteries, and they don’t have the multi planar magnet motors.  They’re locked out of batteries because tesla makes their own now, and they’re locked out of motors because patents.   
 

What is sounds like is not that there is a hype shortage, but a difference of hype source.  “Even Electric cars suck! Take public transportation!” Is one hype source, where “traditional auto companies wil still win the day!” Is another hype source.

 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I think there has been a lot of manipulation of both perceived vehicle quality and of perceived carbon foot print both in Tesla’s disfavor.  I too believed the “gas and electric carbon foot print the same” thing until I watched someone break it down with numbers.  That’s why I said half and not much lower or the same.  He chose only lowest and highest possible numbers always in the favor of gas cars.  The number he got was still only half.  Not the even higher number that the EPA rates electric cars at, but still lower than a gas engine car.

I do not believe that the traditional auto industry has caught up mechanically with tesla.  At all.  Tesla’s advantages in the area are very specific: battery design, battery control technology, and motor design.  Traditional car companies would be capable of narrowing or closing the gap with battery control technology, but not in battery design or motor design.  They simply can’t.  They don’t have the batteries, and they don’t have the multi planar magnet motors.  They’re locked out of batteries because tesla makes their own now, and they’re locked out of motors because patents.   
 

What is sounds like is not that there is a hype shortage, but a difference of hype source.  “Even Electric cars suck! Take public transportation!” Is one hype source, where “traditional auto companies wil still win the day!” Is another hype source.

 

We are already seeing brands other than Tesla having batteries of the same energy density. Here in the UK just a few miles away from me solid state batteries are being developed. Battery technology is being developed very fast. Tesla are currently able to produce more but don’t believe their batteries are ahead of the rest. We also have cars with more powerful motors than in any Tesla that have a similar energy to power curve.
 

An example of a car that has better motors is the porche. It can do 0-flat out repeatedly all day. If you do that in a Tesla the motors will burn out very quickly or the cars own protection systems will cut in. 

[Kisai]

19 hours ago, Phill104 said:

An example of a car that has better motors is the porche. It can do 0-flat out repeatedly all day. If you do that in a Tesla the motors will burn out very quickly or the cars own protection systems will cut in. 

 

There is some build-question reliability about the Tesla's presently on the market, but you also have to consider that a Luxury vehicle tends to be over-engineered. Like the difference between a Toyota Camry and a Lexus ES is basically the cosmetic elements like the seats and the styling of the front face. There is an actual market for counterfeit Lexus vehicles which are basically just rebadged Camry's.

 

I don't see Tesla heading down the same road there. The Tesla 3 and the Tesla S are like the difference between a Camry and a Corolla. There is both a size and a specification difference.

 

Like I half expect that most of the Tesla vehicles (at least ones that don't end with catching fire) will likely be on the road indefinitely until the body panels rust out, and Tesla runs out of parts for that model to repair it (and by repair parts I mean things like the computer system and battery.) The Battery is not going to last indefinitely, just look at how long batteries last in laptops, most last about 2 years tops. 

 

What I expect to happen with the batteries is that there will be regulations requiring the recycling of batteries, or having a lifetime warranty on the battery so that they never end up in waste facilities. Having the manufacture take back the car at the end of it's life rather than end up in a junkyard.

 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

There is some build-question reliability about the Tesla's presently on the market, but you also have to consider that a Luxury vehicle tends to be over-engineered. Like the difference between a Toyota Camry and a Lexus ES is basically the cosmetic elements like the seats and the styling of the front face. There is an actual market for counterfeit Lexus vehicles which are basically just rebadged Camry's.

 

I don't see Tesla heading down the same road there. The Tesla 3 and the Tesla S are like the difference between a Camry and a Corolla. There is both a size and a specification difference.

 

Like I half expect that most of the Tesla vehicles (at least ones that don't end with catching fire) will likely be on the road indefinitely until the body panels rust out, and Tesla runs out of parts for that model to repair it (and by repair parts I mean things like the computer system and battery.) The Battery is not going to last indefinitely, just look at how long batteries last in laptops, most last about 2 years tops. 

 

What I expect to happen with the batteries is that there will be regulations requiring the recycling of batteries, or having a lifetime warranty on the battery so that they never end up in waste facilities. Having the manufacture take back the car at the end of it's life rather than end up in a junkyard.

 

If you speak to any car designer they talk about the construction methods used by Tesla, The build ethos, and we are talking the chassis, the way it is put together and designed, is one that was dropped some 40years ago by most manufacturers. It is a wasteful method and one that has many limitations. I am sure future Tesla models will improve, but the current line are a long way off in so many ways. 
 

Batteries are an interesting one. Well managed temperature controlled batteries will last years, There are plenty of EVs on the road today that have done 500k miles+. The ones that are failing early, at around 100k tend to be models that are in extremes of climate and are not temperature controlled, models like the Nissan Leaf for instance. It is well known that batteries need to be in a certain temperature range while charging and if not they suffer degradation. Hot climates seem to be worse for this hence places like Australia seeing 7 yr old 150k batteries at half their useful capacity. In more moderate climates the degradation is much lower, and where the packs are carefully managed by the cars cooling system the longevity is massively longer. Prius batteries, a different technology obviously, can still be found with very little loss in capacity from even the first models. Sure, the rest of the car is falling apart but the batteries are still good. There is a Prius taxi in the US that is supposedly on 800k miles and still running.

 

So what happens to these batteries when they are no longer useful in a car? A small percentage of the actual cells become unusable so can be recycled for their elements. The rest still have a useful life, probably of around 30 years or so. They are used in fast charging stations for EVs. They act as a reservoir between the grid and the car. So all the time they are trickle charging but when a car gets plugged in they dump their load in the car. In some countries they are now using the charging stations, and will soon use people cars in the same way, to help balance the grid. So as enough of these charging stations come online in a country less power stations are needed as their will be a big store that can be called upon in those peak moments where everyone rushes out for tea at the end of a TV show for instance. Currently most countries have hydro electric, gas and coal stations they have to fire up at these times. In the future they will not be needed.

 

when the batteries do die fully, up to 50 years after production, most can be recycled. How we will do that is yet to be seen. What can be said is the big battery producers are already building facilities to do this as the components are valuable.

[laminutederire]

On 11/19/2019 at 8:59 PM, Phill104 said:

While I agree with a lot of what you have written, such as the poor quality of the cars, I would have say you are wrong on this particular point. There are very different ways to measure the carbon footprint and the oil industry have spent a lot of money trying to protect their business. This has resulted in a huge amount of manipulation of the figures and those figures being pushed to various press outlets. There is still a lot wrong with Tesla cars but this aspect is not one. The more established car makers are doing a far better job at constructing the car itself because they have many more years experience, accrued knowledge and resources to build a car. The edge Tesla once had with their battery manage and motor technology has gone as the established companies have thrown everything at it they can, and in many cases her in Europe have teamed up with their historic competitors to do so. Tesla did prove to the world the technology is there, they also have a superb charging network. However, I am not sure they can continue to do so well in a very rapidly growing marketplace. The likes of VAG, Ford, PSA, Merc, BMW, the Japanese and Korean brands will be having their say.

The research I'm basing myself on isn't benefiting oil companies as they advise a shift from personal cars to public transportation and heavy car sharing. The idea is therefore to reduce the number of cars overall and adopt a more efficient shared network. They also advise electric technologies, but in the form of trams, subways and wired buses, to avoid reliance on polluting batteries.

Lithium based batteries still are hard to recycle, require a very rare resource that is lithium, and other rare metals as well that require a lot of energy to be produced. If you can avoid that and oil altogether.

Yes electric cars aren't necessarily as bad as some might depict them, but producing batteries is energy heavy, and looking at how fast the Tesla cars seem to degrade, I don't know if the benefits actually outweigh the initial cost. That's where the manufacturing design flaws of tesla cars completely kills it as being ecology friendly. They just don't last enough it seems.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

The research I'm basing myself on isn't benefiting oil companies as they advise a shift from personal cars to public transportation and heavy car sharing. The idea is therefore to reduce the number of cars overall and adopt a more efficient shared network. They also advise electric technologies, but in the form of trams, subways and wired buses, to avoid reliance on polluting batteries.

Lithium based batteries still are hard to recycle, require a very rare resource that is lithium, and other rare metals as well that require a lot of energy to be produced. If you can avoid that and oil altogether.

Yes electric cars aren't necessarily as bad as some might depict them, but producing batteries is energy heavy, and looking at how fast the Tesla cars seem to degrade, I don't know if the benefits actually outweigh the initial cost. That's where the manufacturing design flaws of tesla cars completely kills it as being ecology friendly. They just don't last enough it seems.

Which they weren’t doing at all 15 years ago.  What you’re seeing is the oil industry backing down.  They’re looking at the writing on the wall and trying to protect a small bit of what they got left.  I watched the tobacco industry do this same thing.

[laminutederire]

6 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Which they weren’t doing at all 15 years ago.  What you’re seeing is the oil industry backing down.  They’re looking at the writing on the wall and trying to protect a small bit of what they got left.  I watched the tobacco industry do this same thing.

Who cares about them though? If you can apply science in a correct way to deduce something sound, why do you need to discredit it by saying it's a lobby?

It is true that with current technologies the per traveller cost can always be reduced by scaling things up and sharing resources.

Maybe they do that research now because they've been doing it all along and the American propaganda machine has kind of stopped repressing that information from getting out. That's the most likely option if there is to be a conspiracy. 

Maybe you only see that research since that amount of time because people actually care now while they didn't 15 years ago. They have done climate change research since 50 years, there has been energy optimization research for transportation or heating since centuries as well. It had nothing to do with oil companies doing anything.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

Who cares about them though?
[/QUOTE] apparently you.  It’s your post

If you can apply science in a correct way to deduce something sound, why do you need to discredit it by saying it's a lobby?

because they’re both true?

 

It is true that with current technologies the per traveller cost can always be reduced by scaling things up and sharing resources.

can be, yes.  The problem is that as this is done traveler comfort reduces.  I for example can no longer fly in airplanes.  I’m too large to fit in the miniaturized seats.  I weigh more than I did when I could fit in them, but not much more.  As it stands now even my abusively thin gym bunny 25 year old 5% body fat self would not be able to.  My legs are the same length they always were. 

Maybe they do that research now because they've been doing it all along and the American propaganda machine has kind of stopped repressing that information from getting out.

and maybe cats can control peoples minds.  I don’t believe it myself.  There are probably people that do though

That's the most likely option if there is to be a conspiracy.

that’s not what a conspiracy is.  Conspiracy requires conspiring. There is an argument that could be made that any lobby is to some degree a conspiracy then

Maybe you only see that research since that amount of time because people actually care now while they didn't 15 years ago.

huhwhat? There may be a typo or two in that sentence. Autocorrect can do weird things to sentences. I’m not parsing it

They have done climate change research since 50 years, there has been energy optimization research for transportation or heating since centuries as well. It had nothing to do with oil companies doing anything.

Who is “they”?  Various Oil companies? there is ample evidence that various individual oil companies at one time or another actively attempted to interfere with climate change research.  Iirc  Oil companies as early as the 1970’s were the primary opponents of the concept of climate change or  any research into it.  To be effective opponents they’d have to have data themselves.  Such companies have a long history of hiring and supporting climate change denial scientists.